HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schwartz, M D Articles by Lerman, C Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schwartz, M D Articles by Lerman, C

A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: the impact on self-reported mammography use.

M D Schwartz, B K Rimer, M Daly, C Sands and C Lerman

Georgetown University Medical Center/Lombardi Cancer Center, Cancer Genetics, Washington, DC 20007, USA. schwartm@gunet.georgetown.edu

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of individualized breast cancer risk counseling on mammography use among women at risk for breast cancer. METHODS: Participants (n = 508) were randomized to the breast cancer risk counseling intervention or a general health education control intervention, and 85% completed follow-up. RESULTS: In multivariate modeling, a significant group-by-education interaction demonstrated that among less-educated participants, breast cancer risk counseling led to reduced mammography use. There was no intervention effect among the more-educated participants. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that standard breast cancer risk counseling could have an adverse impact on the health behaviors of less-educated women.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L.B. Lykins, E. L. Pavlik, and M. A. Andrykowski Validity of Self-Reports of Return for Routine Repeat Screening in an Ovarian Cancer Screening Program Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2007; 16(3): 490 - 493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Braithwaite, J. Emery, F. Walter, A. T. Prevost, and S. Sutton Psychological Impact of Genetic Counseling for Familial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, January 21, 2004; 96(2): 122 - 133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Edwards, S. Unigwe, G. Elwyn, and K. Hood Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review BMJ, September 27, 2003; 327(7417): 703 - 709. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. E. Kahn and M. F. Luce Understanding High-Stakes Consumer Decisions: Mammography Adherence Following False-Alarm Test Results Marketing Science, January 1, 2003; 22(3): 393 - 410. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Murabito, J. C. Evans, M. G. Larson, B. E. Kreger, G. L. Splansky, K. M. Freund, M. A. Moskowitz, and P. W. F. Wilson Family Breast Cancer History and Mammography: Framingham Offspring Study Am. J. Epidemiol., November 15, 2001; 154(10): 916 - 923. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M Marteau and C. Lerman Genetic risk and behavioural change BMJ, April 28, 2001; 322(7293): 1056 - 1059. [Full Text]

				K. D. McCaul and H. E. Tulloch Cancer Screening Decisions J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, January 1, 1999; 1999(25): 52 - 58. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. W. Vernon Risk Perception and Risk Communication for Cancer Screening Behaviors: a Review J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, January 1, 1999; 1999(25): 101 - 119. [Abstract] [Full Text]